yguy

Insufficient information.

BioBeing

But you initially said ANYONE can become like this. Anyone can write a book about a character who loves unconditionally. I meant do you truly and unconditionally love everything? Does anyone living today? Despite everything that may happen to them despite (or as a result of) that love, to keep on loving? What percentage of Church-going Christians would you say fit this phenotype? I can't think of anyone I ever met like this.

PS - did Jesus never get angry at anyone? Unconditional love means NEVER getting angry, despite all circumstances, doesn't it? Being cross at someone would indicate a conditionallity to that love.

Interesting composition!

I never denied the Bible was one potential source of moral guidance. But civilizations evolved first, IMO, and then we wrote the rulebooks.

An atheist who follows the xian ideals to the letter is an xian, even if he would rather call himself an atheist? Well, I would argue with that! I consider myself at least as moral as the next man, but I am certainly NOT a Christian. *The buddist in question may have, of course, considered Christianity and rejected it*

So prayer, by the English speaking population of the world, is wasted if God cannot understand them. Do you think your omnipotent-except-where-language-is-concerned god speaks Spanish? Maybe just Hebrew?

And how can a pagan have faith? Again, are you saying that I am really a Christian???

And to kind of get back on track here. I think you are saying the early humans would get in, assuming they were good early humans. How about apes? Do apes go to heaven (assuming again they are good apes, and not naughty ones). They exhibit altruism, so why not?

BioBeing

You do realize, don't you, yguy, that this is the reason many atheists give to personally reject the entire JC religion (as well as all the other religions)? No evidence.

yguy

What a stunning revelation.

Sci_Fidelity

Then why is salvation through J.C. necessary at all?

Abel Stable

Sooooo.....are you going to tell us what additional info you require? or do you have nothing more to say?

Paperstreet

God doesn't speak english? Hmmm.... one hell of an omnipotent being don't ya think?

long winded fool

If I told you, wouldn't I be giving you guidelines? How can you know how to use your conscience if I don't tell you? If I tell you, aren't I undermining your own conscience and impressing mine upon you? Since I am not God, wouldn't this cause more harm than good? Showing someone the guidelines is good. Telling them how to interpret them is not. However, pointing out logical contradictions in their behavior would help them. "You are doing it wrong!" Is not helpful, and probably harmful. "If you desire such and such, and such and such is the case, then you are doing it wrong," is helpful if the syllogism is valid and the conclusion is sound. If the argument is not sound, then I can be helped by having this pointed out to me. In this way, we all construct the guidelines. In all cases, the goal is the same. Honesty which leads to knowledge of Truth which leads to Love. Jesus claimed to be "Truth." God is said to be "Love." By the way of Truth, (honesty) we get to Love, (wisdom, selfless altruism.) "There is no way to the Father except through me." You can't truly love without wisdom. If you are capable of wisdom and you don't love, you are pitiable and doomed to unhappiness. If you are incapable of wisdom, you can't be expected to truly love and are therefore as happy as you can be. So maybe apes do go to heaven, because they are judged by their own capacity, not ours?

Not many. However, the desire to be unconditionally loving, (which is separate from the state of being unconditionally loving,) is very different from desiring something else, wouldn't you agree? While we all may fail to be unconditionally loving, do we ever fail to desire to be unconditionally loving? Doing what one feels is best for others often results in catastrophic error and horrendous evils. Doing what one knows is detrimental to others and beneficial for you can only be an error if you do not benefit. The former is forgivable. The latter is just pitiable either way. Doing what we think is right is good, even if we turn out to be wrong. Doing what we think is wrong is bad, even if we turn out to be right. This is why Jesus often admonished the Pharisees (the accepted religion of the day who followed God's laws as they appeared in the OT to the letter) and praised the pagans and Gentiles (who followed their consciences and did what they believed to be right despite what the laws of God appeared to them to say.)

Love and anger cannot coexist? That's interesting... I don't know if I would say that. I would say that omniscience and anger can't logically coexist. Of course, I cannot fathom the coexistence of free-will and omniscience either, but I think we are assuming for the moment that it does.

An atheist who follows the xian ideals to the letter is an xian, even if he would rather call himself an atheist? Well, I would argue with that! I consider myself at least as moral as the next man, but I am certainly NOT a Christian. *The buddist in question may have, of course, considered Christianity and rejected it*

But you are a Christian! (assuming you honestly follow your conscience to the best of your ability) You just aren't what most other people (or you, yourself) would call a christian. Christian means different things to different people. It also means different things in the Bible than it does in most christian's minds. Christian and Jew is by Biblical definition the exact same thing. Jews do not claim to believe the same things as Christians and vice versa, but this is irrelevant. Whatever it means to be a Christian or a Jew must be identical. Therefore arguing over which parables and fairy tales are accurate, and even arguing if any of them are at all accurate, is unnecessary for applying the label of Christian as it appears Biblically. Whatever quality a person needs to be "saved" is present in absolutely every human heart to be used or discarded, regardless of where their reason takes them, according to the Bible when taken in its full context, IMHO.

So prayer, by the English speaking population of the world, is wasted if God cannot understand them. Do you think your omnipotent-except-where-language-is-concerned god speaks Spanish? Maybe just Hebrew?

And how can a pagan have faith? Again, are you saying that I am really a Christian???

And to kind of get back on track here. I think you are saying the early humans would get in, assuming they were good early humans. How about apes? Do apes go to heaven (assuming again they are good apes, and not naughty ones). They exhibit altruism, so why not?

I think in order to speak English, one must first be a being. While God is depicted as a father figure, I read this as a personification. Because the night wind whispers 'Lenore' doesn't mean that the wind speaks English. God is love, according to the Bible, and love speaks all languages when personified and none when critically analyzed. Love doesn't care what you call yourself and isn't barred by any vocabulary. A loving satanist can be no different than a loving christian in God's eyes. "Love" is the deciding factor, not "Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Satanist, Fascist, Nazi," etc.

I don't really know if you are a Christian anymore than I know if those who call themselves christian are Christian. A person adamantly against the church that has been constructed around a faulty interpretation of the Bible and all it stands for can still be in agreement with the Bible in their conscience, even if he or she doesn't know it. I know you are not a christian in the sense of the word that you mean it. I do not know that you aren't as an atheist a part of the "kingdom of God," whatever that is.

Anyone can have faith. A pagan or atheist can't have faith in the church that claims to be Christian, but they can (and often do) have faith in the things that are required to be a Christian in the Biblical sense. Reason cannot be abandoned for desire in true Biblical Christianity. (Christian merely being a later label for a Jew.) True Christianity/Judaism in the Bible would be the inversion of this, though the Bible is chock full of stories of Jews/Christians acting wrongly. Ignore desires, act on reason. Even God Himself is quoted, saying "Come, let us reason." Those who follow reason before their instinctual fears and desires are Christians/Jews in the context of the Bible as Jesus explains it. Those who ignore reason and follow their instincts have "the mark of the beast." Get it? Beast, animal, instincts? Man, an imperfect being with instincts of fear and lust, was created on the sixth day. God is a triune being. Long ago we "crawled on our bellies" as "serpents," (assuming mammals evolved from reptiles.) The ability to reason and to love raises us above those animals that do not. The "trinity of man" would be our animal instincts being worshipped once again above our ability to love and reason. 666